The new docu-series is worlds apart from American Murder: Laci Peterson, which dropped on Netflix earlier this month and looked at the many disturbing details that led to Scott’s conviction for the 2002 murder of his wife Laci and their unborn child Conner.
As Scott serves a life in prison without parole sentence in Mule Creek State Prison in California, his family are fighting the guilty conviction, with the case being picked up by the LA Innocence Project.
But how likely is it that he’ll get a new trial? Dexerto spoke with a number of legal experts to get their opinion on this question and what factors will need to be considered. Warning: Some may find this content distressing.
Lawyers say new trial would be “uphill battle”
The general consensus is that while there’s a possibility Scott Peterson could get a new trial, it would be an “uphill battle” and would require compelling new evidence that demonstrated innocence or that the original trial was flawed.
Speaking to Dexerto, Mark Pierce, founder and CEO of Wyoming Trust & LLC Attorney, explained that the “critical factor in assessing the likelihood of a retrial is the presence of new, compelling evidence or egregious errors during the original trial.”
Pierce highlighted the questions raised over the seating of a juror “who failed to disclose a pertinent fact.”
In 2021, it was revealed that Scott’s lawyers were fighting for a retrial with the claim that Juror 7 failed to disclose that she was beaten by an ex-boyfriend while pregnant in 2001 and her partner’s ex-girlfriend “committed acts of violence against her” in 2000 while pregnant with another child.
Although his legal team suggested this could lay grounds for sending the case back to court, the juror later testified that she was not biased and her decision was determined by evidence presented in court.
Pierce said that while Scott’s legal team may have sufficient grounds for a retrial, “it’s easier said than done.”
“If they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that such a mistake significantly impaired the jury’s objectiveness, then there’s a chance for a retrial,” he continued.
“But securing a retrial is often a time-consuming, uphill battle that requires considerable resources. I’ve observed similar situations in the past where, even with solid grounds, the judicial system’s inertia may pose significant barriers.”
Similarly, Jonathan Feniak, General Counsel at LLC Attorney, told Dexerto that the “probability of a retrial largely depends on the merits of the newly discovered evidence, specifically with regards to its potential to impact the verdict.”
Feniak explained a pitfall in the Peterson case: new evidence affirms what’s already deemed “known” in the legal process, which “courts usually view as insufficient.”
Providing a number of case examples and the crucial factors that led to a retrial, Feniak noted the Michael Peterson case, which had a “clear display of prosecutorial misconduct.”
He also highlighted the Sam Sheppard case’s “significant proof of a compromised jury” and the “substantial indication of a flawed forensic analysis” shown in the David Camm case.
Lawyer Zain Ali pointed to 2020, when the California Supreme Court overturned Peterson’s death sentence after it was found that prosecutors improperly dismissed potential jurors who stated that they personally disagreed with the death penalty but would be willing to impose it.
While this “opened the door for further legal challenges… securing a full retrial would require proving that these or other issues were so substantial that they impacted the fairness of the trial,” said Ali.
“Given the complexity of the legal system and the specifics of Peterson’s case, it’s possible, though not guaranteed, that a retrial could be granted if compelling arguments and new evidence are presented.”
Scott Monroe, founder and CEO of Monroe Law Firm, commented on the difference between legal proceedings and public sentiment following the release of Netflix and Peacock’s new true crime docu-series.
“Given the high-profile nature of Peterson’s case, any motion for a retrial would be scrutinized closely by the appellate courts,” Monroe told Dexerto.
“While the documentary may raise questions in the public eye, the legal system requires concrete, compelling reasons to grant a retrial in a case of this magnitude.
“It’s a steep hill to climb, but not an impossible one, depending on the strength of the legal arguments and the evidence presented.”
While many of the legal experts we spoke to suggested it’s possible but difficult, Ben Michael, attorney, M & A Criminal Defense Attorneys, said he believes it’s “highly unlikely that Scott Peterson will get a retrial.”
“However, the Los Angeles Innocence Project is now on this particular case, and that could mean something. This organization has a pretty significant success rate and a ton of public support, plus they have a lot of resources at their disposal.”
The latest in the appeal
On July 29, 2024, San Mateo judge Elizabeth Hill outlined how the DNA testing on a piece of evidence recovered from Laci’s 2003 autopsy will proceed.
The news arrived after Hill, who is presiding over Scott Peterson’s latest bid for a new trial, delivered a blow to the defense team in May by denying the motion to have DNA testing carried out on all but one of 14 pieces of evidence.
The evidence that’s been granted testing is a 15.5-inch piece of duct tape recovered from Laci’s pants after her remains washed ashore in 2003.
Hill’s latest order specifies that Pure Gold Forensics, Inc. will conduct the DNA testing, as well as the methods used. It also states that “the DNA testing shall be conducted within 45 days of this order or as soon as practical.”
Peterson’s attempts are backed by the Los Angeles Innocence Project, a nonprofit group that picked up the case in January 2024. It’s important to note that the LA Innocence Project is separate from the Innocence Project.
Scott’s theory in Face to Face
In Peacock’s Face to Face with Scott Peterson, the convict reiterates his long-standing theory that Laci was killed by thieves who burglarized a neighboring home around the time of Laci’s disappearance.
The theory was put forward by the defense team during the original trial, however, the prosecution and investigators ruled it out based on several factors.
Firstly, the timeline of the burglary conflicted with the timeline of Laci’s disappearance. Some initial eyewitness reports suggested the burglary took place on December 24, 2002, but it was later established that it occurred on December 26, after Laci was already missing.
The burglars were questioned and reportedly passed polygraph tests. Although it’s true these tests are not foolproof and are generally not admissible as definitive evidence in court, this further weakened the defense’s argument, especially as Scott refused to take the test himself.
Additionally, there was substantial evidence that led to Scott’s conviction, from the details surrounding his fishing trip to his affair with Amber Frey, who went on to testify against Scott after finding out the truth about his marriage and Laci’s disappearance.
As such, the theory has drawn criticism amid the release of the Peacock docu-series, with one writing on X/Twitter, “Justice was served when he was convicted and sentenced. He does not deserve our time or a public platform.”
“It’s taken him 20 years to come up with burglars did it? A neighbor was getting burgled, so she went over to see what was going on, and she was taken… just one problem with that, though, she went missing before the burglary took place,” said another.
American Murder: Laci Peterson is streaming on Netflix now, while Face to Face with Scott Peterson is on Peacock. You can also read about the one person missing from the docu-series, and find out other TV shows coming to streaming this month.
Source: dexerto.com, Staff, August 22, 2024
_____________________________________________________________________
Twitter/X | Facebook | Telegram | Contact Us
"One is absolutely sickened, not by the crimes that the wicked have committed,
but by the punishments that the good have inflicted."
but by the punishments that the good have inflicted."
— Oscar Wilde
